Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the "at home" issue of disability be dealt with by this office or by this House? Is the Minister aware that since his predecessor's time, I have spoken of how unsatisfactory Portcullis House is for the disabled? There are no mirrors in the toilets for disabled people, although they like to be able to see how they look. We have also been told that the very heavy doors have been made easier to open, but disabled people still have great difficulty with them and round handles in Portcullis House. Will that come under this House or the new office?

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, one has to welcome the new initiative, but does the Minister agree that although there has been a similar initiative with respect to women in government, it has not had the effect that one might have hoped for in reducing, for example, salary or earnings differentials between women, except in the public service? What progress can such bodies make in those aspects of inequality?

Lord Soley: My Lords, does the Minister take comfort from a visit that was made to this country by a number of senior Chinese government figures about three or four years ago? They asked me whether I was optimistic or pessimistic for the future of China. I said that I was optimistic for the economy, hopeful for the rule of law but worried about the ability to change governments and deal with human rights without difficulty. Their answer to me was commendably honest. They said, "You might be worried, but not as worried as we are".
	As the Minister says, the reality is that this country is moving, sometimes in the right direction, sometimes—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, indicated—very much in the wrong direction . It is our job to try to encourage China down the right route while bringing to its attention the failings that are still manifest.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I do not claim paternity of this short, simple and important amendment; I concede that honour to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. The limited function to which I am entitled to limited credit is to draw your Lordships' attention to the extent to which he is neglecting his own offspring and to invite your Lordships to give statutory protection to the infant.
	The amendment arises quite simply in this way. Clause 1(7)—to be found about two-thirds of the way down page two of the present draft—provides:
	"In this section references to an individual's identity are references to—
	(a) his full name;
	(b) other names by which he is or has previously been known".
	Nothing could be clearer than the fact that (b) is additional to (a)—two statutory obligations,
	"his full name [and] other names by which he is or has previously been known".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, appreciating that this was the situation, raised the matter on the third day of Committee on Wednesday 23 November last year. She raised it by tabling an amendment which proposed that the word "legally" be inserted into paragraph (b).
	That was followed by a lengthy discussion, lasting close to 30 minutes, in which 14 of your Lordships took part. Questions were raised as to what "legal" meant and how one could define it having regard to the fact that there was no formal obligation to adopt any particular procedure when one changed one's name; deed poll may be a good way but usage and repute is equally effective. Then there followed questions about nicknames. I raised a question as to the obligation in that situation. I illustrated my views by a reference to the late Lord Justice Purchas, known universally as Bob Purchas, yet his Christian name was Francis—Francis Purchas.
	I could have added another colleague of mine, Buster Milmo, who was known consistently by that name. I bear in mind that I had a similar nickname, which I decided was not wholly consistent with the pomp and splendour of the Bar, and after all repressed it. The result was that when Sir Norman Skelhorn, the previous DPP, sent a telegram congratulating "Buster", he meant it to refer to Buster Milmo and not to me, but those who knew me by that nickname were confused.
	So the discussion was wide ranging. I said that I had still not understood the position, and referred to Lord Justice Purchas. Then, all of a sudden, with his well recognised perspicacity, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said:
	"I shall try to pin it down. In those circumstances the person should register as Francis, but"—
	I emphasise this point—
	"he could also provide the name Bob to the national identity register".
	That was the first suggestion that there was a choice available to the individual in regard to what he put under (b). There is no reflection of that in the subsection. Further on, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked,
	"Am I right in understanding that one has to put down the name of one's choice, that other names are entirely voluntary and there is no compulsion to put down all the names that one is known by?".
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied,
	"I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because I think he understands the situation well".—[Official Report, 23/11/05; col. 1638.]
	That puzzled the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, who in her reply said:
	"I am grateful to all noble Lords—about 13, I think—who have taken part in a debate on an amendment which I had intended to lead to some clarity. I think it has just opened another can of worms. I certainly do not intend to examine that can of worms any more today. I shall consider what we are to do before Report stage. I was grateful to the Minister for his response at the end to my noble friend Lord Lucas. I understood him to be saying something that he had not quite said earlier: that we may elect what names we put down and will not then be penalised for leaving out names. If that is the case, then it sounds a very common-sense way forward . . . There has been some confusion. I hope that the Minister's closing remarks to my noble friend Lord Lucas"—
	the same comments that I have read out—
	"will mean greater clarity. If we find that the Government think again on that point, obviously we may have to return to it".—[Official Report, 23/11/05; col. 1639.]
	The amendment was by leave withdrawn.
	I attended the Report stage. I had assumed that paragraph (b) would be modified in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, suggested, and I had therefore not paid the anticipatory attention that perhaps I should have done. When I came to look at the amendments on Report, there were none. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, had done nothing to further the increased vitality of his offspring, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, had therefore nothing new to contemplate. Having observed that, it occurred to me that the position was really most untidy. We have an obligation under paragraph (b), which I read out, that is entirely unqualified, and yet we appear to have reached unanimity among the 13 or 14 of us who spoke that it should be "at the choice of", hence the words that I have used. The drafting that I have followed is consistent with the same wording that is found in subsections (5) and (6).
	In these circumstances, I hope that your Lordships will be easily persuaded now to provide the certainty that we all long for. Accordingly, I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, bringing back the amendment in an improved form. As he said, he is trying to reflect fairly the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to an amendment of mine which I had, of course, intended in all seriousness in Committee, but for some reason the House seemed to find a little frivolous at the time. The reason why I did not bring it back on Report—because as the House will know I like to help the Government on each and every occasion—was that I realised that the Government were in a complete mess on this and that on this occasion the mess was so comprehensive that I could not find a way out of it for them.
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that the Government needed some measure of flexibility in the format of paragraph (b), and therefore they needed to be able to compel us to register a range of names; not just our principal name but others by which we are now, or have been previously, known.
	I am about to say two things, one of which I think will bring comfort to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the other of which I think he will wish that I had not said. I shall say the nice thing first.
	When the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, referred to flexibility, he went on to say:
	"The register has been designed . . . to accommodate the fact that a number of people use more than one name".—[Official Report, 23/11/05; col. 1636.]
	He then said that the Government needed this flexibility to cope with identity fraud and the problems that that causes. I hope that the Minister will bring a more effective argument than that to the House on this occasion. When the Government published their figures about identity fraud on 2 February and made extravagant claims about its extent and the importance of this Bill in tackling it, they then found that their claims were blown apart by the very body which provided those statistics; that is, APACS, the Association for Payment Clearing Services. It said that the cost of identity fraud that the Government had put forward had been grossly overestimated and that its own figures had been misrepresented. Ministers included in their total the cost of money laundering, but the Home Office admits that only "illustrative figures" were involved and that,
	"no figures are currently available on the proportion of money laundering that relies on identity fraud".
	Furthermore, the Government claim that APACS put the cost of ID fraud linked to plastic cards at £504 million, but a spokeswoman for APACS then said that the real figure was less than £37 million. She said:
	"The £504 million is the total losses for plastic cards. It is not just identity fraud on cards. Within that overall figure, there will be some cards stolen in the post, some skimmed or cloned, some lost or stolen".
	When asked why she thought that the Home Office had used the larger sum, she said:
	"I just think they think it's a good story to scare people with".
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, cited identity fraud as the driving argument for subsection (b). I hope that he will be able to bring a more sturdy argument for the necessity of the subsection to the House.
	I now come to the part of my remarks which will not please the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I reflected on the can of worms that we had opened in Committee. The argument that persuaded me that however bad subsection (b) was I could not yet find a satisfactory way out of it is as follows: if the House were to accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment, its drafting would mean that we would have the option to register any name other than our current principal name. The noble and learned Lord gave admirable reasons why we should have that option.
	My concern centres around the problem of how we then ensure that the multiple identities of those who have been, and are, serious criminals or terrorists—either living within this country, or outwith it before coming to live here—are registered on the national identity register. If there is any argument for its use, it should be that of national security. That is an argument that we pursued throughout Committee and Report. We still say that much better and more effective ways of ensuring national security exist than by using this intrusive, bureaucratic identity register.
	However, if the Government were to accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment, there could be difficulties in obtaining the very information about terrorists which we would all wish to have readily available to the police and to immigration officials when they check that register. The Minister may of course surprise us all and accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment, but if he is not going to do so, I hope that he will make a more robust response than he did in Committee and also recognise that the Government, by the very drafting of this Bill, have done exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said and left the position as an unknown. Members of the public will not find that a very convenient way of registering their names when they read Clause 7(1)(b).

Lord Hylton: My Lords, when the Minister replies for the Government will he says something about subsection (7)(d), that uses the words "the date of his death", which reminds me of Gogol's famous novel, Dead Souls. I can see that the living may sometimes want to impersonate the dead, but does there not come a time when the dead should be decently interred? How long will the names of the dead be kept on the national register?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am more sympathetic to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The noble and learned Lord, having led us this far up the garden path regarding his former nickname, should tell us why he was given it.
	No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will tell us in reply to the amendment that, surely, the requirement to provide a "full name", which is unaffected by the amendment, must mean the current full name. My other point is that it will make little difference whether or not the amendment is allowed. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would help the House, because the Bill is always springing little surprises on us, even at Third Reading.
	As I understand it, Schedule 1 has a paragraph entitled "Validation information", which clearly states that:
	"The following may be recorded in the entry in the Register for an individual",
	and begins,
	"the information provided in connection with every application,"
	for an ID card. That relates to all the background information. Paragraph 7(c ) states:
	"particulars of the steps taken, in connection with an application . . . for identifying the applicant or for verifying the information provided".
	I anticipate that the procedure in connection with applications for ID cards and their consideration by the Passport Office will centre heavily around identification and, in particular, around the name. Thus, with or without the amendment, it seems to me that you will have logged on your file in the national register all the stuff about previous names—I will not say nicknames.
	It would be helpful for us to know the rights and wrongs of that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, given our debates in Committee I rather thought that I might have been to blame for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I hope that I can rise reasonably effectively to the tease in his amendment and I thank him for moving it again so that we could debate this issue, as we did with some amusement at an earlier stage. I should also address some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, regarding the latest published figures on identity fraud.
	I accept that there has been some dispute in the press over those figures, but for our part, we feel that the figure of £1.7 billion has in the main been agreed with all the key stakeholders. We have never claimed that the introduction of identity cards would impact on all of that fraud but it would certainly make a substantial difference. I suspect that the noble Baroness appreciates that that is the case. I do not know whether she occasionally watches commercials as intently as I do—I am obliged to by my children—but I recall that a major credit card, Capital One, I think, is drawing people's attention to its own variant of credit card rating by claiming to be more secure from fraud and identity fraud than other credit cards. That is entirely a matter for those involved, but clearly there is an issue, which we cannot dismiss. Yes, it is part of the Government's case that having a secure system of identity will ensure that the chances of people being able to secure and steal one's identity for a fraudulent purpose are much reduced. That is important, certainly for consumers, who have to pay the cost of identity fraud through their credit card bills.
	As noble Lords are by now no doubt aware, Clause 1 sets out the statutory purposes, an important component of which are the registrable facts—that is, the key pieces of information through which people's identity will be established. Clause 1(7)(b) includes within the registrable facts other names by which a person is or has previously been known. That is set out in the Bill.
	This amendment, as moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would qualify that paragraph with the words,
	"if the individual so chooses",
	and would introduce the element of choice in the way in which he described. The effect of the amendment would be twofold. First, it would impact on the Secretary of State's regulation-making power in Clause 5(3), under which the information that must accompany an application to be registered will be prescribed. That power is limited by Clause 5(6), the effect of which is that the regulations may not require information from a person unless that information is required for the statutory purposes. Amendment No. 1 would write into the statutory purposes the proposition that it is entirely a matter for the individual concerned whether or not previous or other names are recorded. Regulations which nevertheless required such information would therefore be of dubious legality.
	The second effect that the amendment would have is that, where a person changed his name and updated his entry on the register, his previous name could, arguably, not be held unless he consented to it being so held. That is because, as a consequence of Clause 3(1), information may continue to be held on the register only if it is consistent with the statutory purposes to do so.
	We take the view that the power to determine if and when previous or other names should be held on the register should not rest solely with the individual concerned, as suggested in the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In fact, as regards previous names in particular, we consider that for the prevention and detection of fraud it is imperative that that discretion does not remain with individuals.
	On enrolment, it will be necessary to ask whether an individual has had a previous name so that verification of all the information provided by him can be carried out effectively. This is nothing new and is a common request on many application forms, such as the passport application. To do otherwise would leave a loophole to assist those wishing to create a false identity.
	The recording of previous names is also important to tackle situations where fraudsters change their name and address in rapid succession in order to create a new identity or fraudulently use that of another person. Currently, such crimes can be difficult to prevent, as there is no reliable source that can link a previous and current name to the same individual. Very often, a proof of change of name does not even exist. By recording previous names, the identity card scheme can help to tackle this problem far more effectively than can current methods such as a presentation of a deed poll, where there is absolutely no assurance that you are in fact the person on the deed poll.
	A different rationale underlies the recording of second names. As our letter to Peers during Committee stage clarified, this is intended primarily to be for the convenience of the individual who may need to be verified in a different name, such as a stage name or their maiden name. To that extent, it will indeed be a matter for the individual concerned whether or not he registers a second—or, indeed, third—name as his current name.
	However, there will be certain circumstances in which the Secretary of State will require details of a second, current name to be held on the register. For example, in the small number of cases in which those members of the transgender community living dual gender lives will have two cards, both names will have to be recorded on the register.
	As noble Lords are aware, people are free to call themselves whatever they like. A change of name does not need to be effected by deed poll. Our policy on names in relation to the register in no way changes that position. We will require people to register their primary name, that is to say the name by which a person is known for all purposes. We will provide guidance to ensure that a person is satisfied that the right name is on record, in line with the current practice of the UK Passport Service. Attendance at an enrolment centre will also ensure that any questions can be clarified by a member of staff before enrolment is complete.
	I hope I have been able to explain clearly to the House why we consider that the discretion to determine if and when a previous or an alternative name should be held on the register should not, as the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would suggest, rest entirely with the individual concerned.
	I have referred to the regulation-making power in Clause 5(3) to prescribe the information which must accompany an application to be registered. It is those regulations that will contain the details of exactly when previous names and alternative names will be required from applicants. I should remind noble Lords that on the first occasion on which regulations are made under that power the parliamentary procedure will be the affirmative resolution procedure. Thus the matter will come before your Lordships' House at a later date.
	Other questions were raised during the debate and I shall try to respond to them as best as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked about previous names being included in the validation information. I agree with him that it is likely that previous names would be investigated and recorded as validation information under paragraph 7 of Scheduled 1. I am in agreement with the noble Lord on that point. However, that would be a rather indirect route. We believe that previous names are highly relevant to establishing a person's true identity and in combating fraud. Therefore, we take the view that it is right that they should be included as registrable facts in themselves.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked how long a deceased person's names will be kept. In essence, the answer is as long as necessary for the statutory purposes of the scheme. Clearly, we need to be able to guard against what is sometimes known as the "Day of the Jackal" type fraud. I recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill we had some discussion on that. Fraudsters seek to use the identities of people who have died. The answer is for as long as necessary. At this stage I cannot say exactly how long that will be. We shall have to give continued thought to that point.
	I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for bringing forward this discussion today. I hope that I have clarified any confusion that may have arisen. I had hoped that the letter that we sent after Committee stage had done that. I hope that having heard that explanation the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, until the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, intervened, I thought he was a friend of mine. If he were really interested in how I obtained my sobriquet, he would have asked me that in private. I never have any secrets from the House. There is a certain sweetness about this which I hope he would naturally associate with me. On my fourth birthday, I was presented with a chocolate cake by my parents.I embraced it, and the conclusion was that the dear child would rather bust than waste his sweetmeats—hence the word "buster". Now that he knows all, I hope he will find it relevant to this construction exercise that we are all going through.
	With regard to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I draw her attention to Clause 5, which is on page 5 of the Bill, headed:
	"Applications relating to entries in Register".
	Clause 5(2) states:
	"Where an application to be issued with a designated document is made by an individual, the application may, if the individual so chooses, do one of the following . . . include an application by that individual to be entered in the Register . . . state that the individual is already entered in the Register and confirm the contents of his entry . . . state that the individual is entered in the Register and confirm the contents of his entry subject to the changes notified in the application".
	Clearly, discretion is given to the applicant. Clause 6(7) provides:
	"An individual who is not already the holder of an ID card may, if the individual so chooses, in the prescribed manner, include an application to be issued with such a card in every application made by him to be issued with a designated document".
	Once again, discretion is given to the individual.
	I find the submissions of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, unconvincing. There is an absolute obligation; no exceptions or any form of limitation on the clause are provided. Accordingly, some modification is required. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, sought to include her qualification of legality, which did not find favour. The need for modification was made perfectly clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who, having gone through the various problems raised in Committee, made it clear that there was a discretion. But there was not. The words are absolute, and accordingly, they needed modification. It was conceded in Committee that this is an important point. In those circumstances, I want to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 amends the list of registrable facts so that instead of Clause 1(7)(e) referring to "physical" characteristics that are capable of being used for identifying an individual, it refers to "external" characteristics that are capable of being used for identifying an individual.
	I should say at the outset that this amendment is not intended to give effect to any change of policy. However, it fulfils the Government's commitment on Report to review this matter in response to concerns understandably expressed by a number of noble Lords. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was concerned that the reference to "physical" characteristics could encompass internal characteristics. As I said at the time, the wording of paragraph (e) has to be considered as a whole, and it is not at all obvious that internal characteristics would be a useful, or indeed a viable, means of identifying people.
	However, we accept the noble Lord's point that for the sake of clarity this matter should be put beyond doubt in the Bill. I have therefore brought forward government Amendment No. 2, which changes the word "physical" to "external". By implication "internal" characteristics are not a registrable fact. They could not therefore be recorded on the register other than in the limited circumstances provided for in Clause 3(3); that is to say where a person has requested that additional information—for example, his blood group—be held on his record.
	There is a further benefit in bringing forward Amendment No. 2 forward. It would bring the wording in Clause 1(7)(e) into line with the definition of biometric information in Clause 43(1), which also uses the phrase "external characteristics". It will therefore be beyond doubt that the reference in Clause 1(7)(e) to external characteristics encompasses biometrics.
	Finally, Amendment No. 2 would have the consequence that DNA could be added to Schedule 1 only by way of primary legislation, not by way of order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The reason for this is that DNA is not an external characteristic, so is not a registrable fact. Holding it on the register would not be consistent with statutory purposes. As has been said many times before in this House and in another place, it is not and has never been our policy that DNA should be stored on the register. This Bill in no way caters for a DNA register. For example, while there are powers to require fingerprints to be taken, there are no powers to require DNA samples. A future government who wished to add DNA to the information which may be held on the register would have to bring forward further primary legislation. Amendment No. 2 has the consequence of putting that issue beyond a shadow of a doubt. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I simply rise briefly to give my full support to this. It is important that this further clarification is given. I know that in another place the Government tried to give assurances, but this was the final step they needed to take. I welcome it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 has been tabled again in response to that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—I think it was Amendment No. 33—which he moved but then kindly withdrew on the first day of Report on 16 January. That amendment would have first given individuals the option of whether an audit log should be kept for those occasions when an identity card is checked with the individual's consent under Clause 14—which is now Clause 12, following the various government set-backs or whatever you want to call them.
	For the reasons that my noble friend Lady Scotland gave earlier (at cols. 532–538 of the Official Report for 16 January 2006) it would be wrong to allow for the possibility of individuals deciding for themselves whether some checks against the register should be logged. If that happened, there would be no record to use in cases of complaint, and it would mean that a fraudster trying to use someone else's card could insist that there was no record kept of the transaction.
	At the same time, we have thought again about the second part of the noble Lord's earlier Amendment No. 33, which would make it a requirement to hold details of whenever any information is provided from an individual's entry on the national identity register without consent. That is what we intended to do. Amendment No. 3 will ensure that each occasion on which information is provided from the register without consent must be recorded in the audit log, in Schedule 1(9).
	I hope that, having heard that, the noble Lord will feel reassured. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have sensations of modified rapture. It is good to have half of one's amendment accepted, and I am genuinely grateful for that. I put on record the fact that the first part of that amendment was important. One of the problems with this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in particular will agree, is that it so complicated and intertwined that it has taken some issues a long time to find expression. Had that come to my mind at an earlier stage, we would then have voted on the first part of the amendment. However, there is no point in doing more than mentioning that.
	The Bill has received conscientious consideration in this House, but several aspects of it, of which this is one, are still deeply unsatisfactory. It is not a protection against fraud to stop any citizen from having the choice on whether utilisation of their card for verification is logged. If a citizen is most motivated by a desire to prevent fraud, he or she will consent to having all the verification uses of his or her ID card logged on the national register. If the citizen is more concerned about privacy—and many are—he or she will choose not to have that logged.
	Having said that, I am grateful for what the Minister said.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I welcome the half of the loaf that has been offered by the Government, but stress that the half they have not granted we think is important. Concerns about how the audit trail may be accessed and used were core to many noble Lords' speeches—certainly to mine—on Second Reading and thereafter. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right to say that despite the careful attention given by the House during six days in Committee, only on Report were we advised about a particular way to amend Schedule 1 that might meet our concerns about the audit trail.
	It is a measure of the great assistance that we receive from those who advise us out with this House that we managed to turn that amendment round within an hour of the closing time for tabling amendments that day. We wanted to ensure that we kept within the rules for tabling amendments and not having manuscript amendments, but that meant, ultimately, we were to fall foul of some of the changes in procedure for Third Reading amendments that we now face.
	I notice that noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, is looking concerned. It would have been difficult for us to table an amendment today within the correct rules that would have been robust enough for us to have argued the case, divided and met within the amendment or the concerns expressed by the Government on Report—especially those that have now been expressed in a letter that we only received during the past 24 hours. I do not complain about that, because the Home Office team has done its absolute utmost throughout to ensure that we received replies as soon as possible. However, we are now more all aware of how speedy we need to be in our responses—we will make that clear to those who brief us—and how wary we must be in what we bring to Third Reading. I am therefore grateful to the Government for tabling the amendment, because it means that they are able to fulfil their commitment on Third Reading. We shall watch what happens to the audit trail if and when the Bill is implemented in this exact form.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that I have the answer to the noble and learned Lord's point, which sounds a good one. I hope that I can satisfy him by dropping him a note.
	I give grateful thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. His "modified rapture" is a term that will now enter my language, because it is a very good one to describe a look of mild contentment on my children's faces across the dinner table. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in response to our amendment. We have made progress, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is certainly right that the Bill has received very considered attention in your Lordships' House. For those reasons, the form has been improved. We were grateful for the way in which earlier amendments were tabled, because it has helped us to find a point that satisfies several, if not absolutely every one, of your Lordships who were concerned about the use and the value of the audit log, which we see in essence as a safeguard.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I have explained in advance of today to the government Bill team that the amendment has been tabled primarily to give the Government the opportunity to clarify their intentions about which documents shall be designated under Clause 4.
	If a document is designated, it means that any application of such a document kicks off the process of application for entry by the individual on the national identity register and the obtaining by them of an identity card. I have probed the Government's intentions behind this. I have been told that their current intention is to designate passports, and that they may designate driving licences in future.
	My initial objections to the whole process of designation was based on the Government's plans in the original Bill as it reached this House to force us all to register and to have an ID card from the word go, as soon as any document was designated and we applied for it. My objections to the process of designation will evaporate into thin air if the Government do not seek to overturn the decision of this House on 23 January, when the House agreed Amendment No. 38 at col. 976. That amendment makes it clear that when an individual applies for a designated document, they can choose to go on the register and have an ID card, or they can choose not to do so.
	If, next Monday, the Government seek to overturn the decision of this House and to insist on compulsion in the initial stage of the operation of the register, my objections to Clause 4 would have to remain. I therefore thought that I should raise in the House my concerns about an interview that the Home Secretary gave a couple of weeks ago on Radio 4. He referred to the designation of passports and perhaps applications for a Criminal Records Bureau check. The question must therefore be; what are the Government's intentions with regard to that check?
	I also tabled the amendment to give effect to a private undertaking that I made to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans last week that I would seek an opportunity for the Government to respond to a question that he had put to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on 30 January at col. 28—a question which the right reverend Prelate fully accepted was rather wide of the mark of Amendment No. 76. Naturally, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, therefore ignored it.
	The right reverend Prelate asked whether any thought had been given to the impact that the designation of Criminal Records Bureau checks would have on volunteering if, of course, we have the original drafting of Clause 5 at some future stage. He pointed out that if we have the original drafting, it would appear that in order to get Criminal Records Bureau clearance, volunteers in any organisation would have to purchase their own ID card before they can volunteer, and that in the interests of encouraging volunteering, that is surely not the way in which we would wish to go.
	Naturally, the right reverend Prelate would have been here himself, but he was on the duty roster last week and cannot be with us this week, hence my reason for tabling the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing her amendment and for explaining privately the thinking behind it. I shall come on to the question of designating CRB certificates in due course.
	The amendment would provide that only passports or residence permits could be designated. The Government cannot accept that we should limit the possibility of designating other official documents. Of course the noble Baroness is right to suggest that passports and residence permits for foreign nationals are the key documents we intend to designate. However, we have always said that we want to keep open the option of designating other documents—the example of the driving licence has been cited in this context. There are also other types of immigration documents that might conceivably be designated, rather than limiting the Bill just to residence permits as defined in Clause 26(2). I understand that noble Lords would like to know more precisely how the designation power in Clause 4 is to be used, but the amendment would create an unwelcome limitation on how that power might be used in the future.
	We have already responded to the suggestion from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by restricting the documents which can be designated to those issued by Crown bodies rather than including documents issued by other bodies under statutory powers. First, I confirm once more that it is the Government's intention to designate British passports issued to United Kingdom residents aged 16 and over so that an identity card could be issued alongside a passport as a package. Secondly, it is intended to designate residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals resident in the United Kingdom for more than three months, so that the residence permit itself would become valid as an ID card. Finally, we intend to issue standalone identity cards, but these would be under what is now Clause 6 and would not be affected by this amendment as they would not require the use of the designation power in Clause 4.
	However, as we have always made clear, the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for the possibility of designation of other official documents in the future. Each designation order under Clause 4 will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure, so this would not be done without the opportunity for proper debate and scrutiny.
	As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans said on Report, the Home Secretary is on record as saying that there is a possibility of linking identity cards to the Criminal Records Bureau check. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was right to suggest that it was on the "Today" programme that the Home Secretary used the word "perhaps", which indicates that we are far from any definite decision.
	We can be clear that the Government want to retain this option, but there are no definite plans to require people applying for a CRB check to have an identity card. If there was, a key factor that we would have to consider would be who would pay for the identity card for volunteers who currently receive a free CRB check. Of course, people who volunteer may already have obtained an ID card—for example, for use as a travel document—in which case there would be no additional cost. As we have made clear in previous debates, the Bill contains power for exemptions and exceptions, including, and in particular, in relation to fee-setting powers.
	Of course, once we move to the second stage of the scheme when we intend it to be compulsory for everyone to register and obtain an ID card, prospective volunteers would already have an identity card, so there would be no additional step for them to take. We believe that the CRB will be able to transform its working processes once ID cards have been rolled out. For example, it has been estimated that the current four weeks' time for the disclosure process can potentially be reduced to three days, if it is possible for people to prove their identity conclusively through possession of an identity card. Furthermore, having proof of identity will reduce the risk that unsuitable persons are able to gain employment with vulnerable adults or children through the misuse of identity or mistakes being made in identification.
	There have been more than 1,000 occasions since March 2004 where applicant details supplied by the CRB to the police led to conviction details being matched mistakenly with an applicant. As I have said, there are no definite plans for CRB certificates to be designated, but we want to retain the possibility of doing so. I give a commitment that the position of volunteers who presently receive a free CRB check would be examined in detail before any move was made to designate CRB certificates.
	In sum, this amendment would remove the possibility of designating any document unless it was a passport or a residence permit. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that this would be too narrow a definition and that the noble Baroness, having heard that, will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I hope that I have made it clear too that we are committed to the designation in due course of passports and residence permits or other immigration documents. We are not presently committed to designation of any other particular documents, but we need to keep that option open. I think that that covers all the points raised during this short debate.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, noble Lords may recall that at Report we indicated that we were investigating whether there was a need to widen the safeguard in Clause 16 in order to close a potential loophole. After giving the matter careful thought we concluded that there was such a need. Government Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are designed to address that need. Noble Lords who have followed the matter closely will recall that Clause 16—Clause 18 as it was previously—is a key safeguard in the Bill. It prohibits organisations from making things conditional on the production of an ID card or a check on the register save in certain circumstances. In essence, the clause prevents compulsion by the back door.
	As drafted, the prohibition relates to a requirement that an ID card be produced, and a requirement that an application under Clause 12 be made or consented to in order that information from the register be provided to the organisation concerned. Government Amendment No. 7 adds three further prohibited scenarios. They are as follows: requiring a person to undertake a subject access request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act; requiring a person to make an application under Clause 12 for information to be provided to him, the cardholder, from his entry on the register—that scenario is distinct from what is already provided for in Clause 16(1)(a) because the information would be being provided to the cardholder not directly to the organisation concerned; and requiring a person to provide information about what is recorded in his entry on the register. This scenario is something of a catch-all. It would cover, for example, forcing people to produce printouts of their entries on the register obtained using the secure online facility.
	It should be noted that these three scenarios are absolutely prohibited. Unlike the scenarios set out in Clause 16(1), these prohibitions do not fall away in the circumstances set out in subsection (2); that is, where the cardholder is subject to compulsory registration; where alternative methods of establishing identity are allowed for; or where the requirement relates to the provision of a public service and has been imposed by legislation.
	The absolute nature of the new prohibitions is particularly important in respect of accreditation. As noble Lords will be aware, we have amended the Bill so that information may not be provided to a person under Clause 12 unless he is accredited with the Secretary of State. Government Amendment No. 7 ensures that an organisation cannot avoid accreditation by requiring the cardholder to have the information provided to himself and then pass it on to the organisation. Government Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are all consequential on government Amendment No. 7.
	I hope that noble Lords recognise that these amendments represent an important and necessary tightening up of the crucial safeguard in Clause 16. I beg to move.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment, moved so ably by my noble friend. Needless to say, therefore, I support it. My noble friend is quite right to draw our attention to the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General not to endorse the Home Office's accounts. As he said, this demonstrates how little faith we can have in its ability to deliver the ID card project, either technologically or within budget. The case that he made is deeply persuasive, and I need not embellish his remarks. Rather, I shall add some further insights about this matter which have surfaced during the past few days.
	First, as my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out earlier, the Home Office released with great fanfare last week its updated figure for the cost to the country of identity fraud, totalling £1.7 billion. Supposedly, the report builds on the previous study from 2002, which claimed that identity theft was then costing some £1.3 billion a year. In light of the report, the Home Office Minister, Andy Burnham, made the bold claim:
	"One way we can reduce the potential for identity fraud is to introduce a national identity card, backed by a National Identity Register".
	It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, that the figures are pure bunkum.
	The report is riddled with inconsistencies and flawed methodology. For example, it includes the sum of £62.8 million, attributable to the cost of administering security and ID checks and combating fraud in passport applications by the UK Passport Service. Do we therefore assume that the sum of £584 million that is so often quoted by the Government as the annual running cost of the identity register and ID cards should be viewed as a legitimate "cost" of identity fraud? But perhaps most telling is the claim, already cited by my noble friend Lady Anelay, that £504.8 million arises from identity fraud-related abuse of credit cards. Clearly, this figure has been sourced from APACS, the card payments body, but as its spokesman, Mark Bowerman, has subsequently revealed, the ID fraud element of the total amounted to just £36.9 million in 2004 and, during the first six months of 2005, it dropped by 16 per cent, principally as a result of the introduction of chip and PIN. Indeed, when all the non-ID fraud figures are taken out of the calculations, the total annual cost of ID fraud is £494 million, although a further £372 million of that is an undefined sum attributed to losses across the telecoms industry. One wonders therefore whether KMPG would be quite so willing to describe the cost assumptions and methodology as "robust".
	That said, while resentful of this misleading attempt to prey on people's fears, I can accept that ID fraud is a growing menace. Nevertheless, an notwithstanding the Minister's earlier comments, we need to recognise—and this simple fact is generally accepted within the industry—that of themselves, ID cards cannot and will not have any significant beneficial effect in countering credit card fraud, not least because it will not be compulsory to carry them. Indeed, the widely-respected LSE report and other commentators within the industry have accurately pointed out that ID cards could exacerbate the problem.
	In that context, news also surfaced at the weekend that Simon Davies, who the Government have consistently and repeatedly vilified for his involvement with the LSE Identity Project, has written to the Prime Minister indicating his possible intention to pursue the matter in the courts should such defamation be repeated. As his letter states, the fact is that:
	"More than sixty academics and a further forty external experts have contributed to the LSE work".
	That being so, is the Minister prepared to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government to retract the outrageous slurs perpetrated against Mr Davies and offer an apology?
	All in all, these matters are of a piece with the relentless litany of spin born of a misguided sense of political expediency, and are unsubstantiated by the available evidence that has spewed out of the Home Office over the past few years in respect of ID cards. I am sure that throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, all of us have had but one wish—namely, that the Government publish their own detailed—I stress, detailed—system architecture, cost-benefit analyses, project risk assumptions and so on. After all, to quote a phrase, "if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear".
	I support the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise to sing the same tune. Why should there be any objection to the amendment, even if the Government deny a good deal of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. The amendment contains sensible provisions that I would have thought would aid and abet the work of the commissioner.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his gallant defence of his accounting office and his department. He did as well as he could in the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that he might deny some of the charges I have made. It would be very hard for him to deny them as they were almost all taken directly from the report of the Auditor General.
	My second point is that it would be totally shocking if the Home Office had failed to recognise the need to strengthen its financial control framework and to improve its financial statements preparation processes to enable it to meet its accountability obligations to Parliament. In view of the scale of the failure, I believe that there would have been considerable trouble and I suspect that the new accounting officer would have been facing a very embarrassing situation indeed.
	Thirdly, we are always told how wonderful the UK Passport Service is, but as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, reminded the House on a previous occasion, it got off to a pretty shambolic start a few years ago. While I acknowledge that it has greatly improved, its record has not been perfect throughout. Finally, I entirely accept that the commissioner is, under the Bill, able to report on these matters. Now that this matter has been drawn to his attention, I hope he will know that he has the encouragement of this House, and that that is exactly what he will do. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are together intended to ensure that any citizen wanting to check the register to ensure that the verifiable facts are accurate can do so without having to pay a fee. I was moved to table these amendments late in the day by our conversation on Report, when the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, made clear that for some searches the normal Data Protection Act fee of £10 would be required. That stuck in my gullet until it was explained to me that there are two quite different sorts of access to the register. One is to check what is mainstream information about you on the register; the other is to get into the considerable body of other information set out in Schedule 1. For example, earlier I mentioned validation information, security information, record history and stuff like that.
	I was not aware until late in the day that the register will contain on it all the information that the registrar obtains from you and me when we apply to go on it—for example, all the answers given to the questions asked of us to verify the key facts. I am just about willing to accept that one should have to pay to access that. However, it would not be fair, right or just—especially if and when the whole scheme becomes compulsory—for you and I to be required to provide information and then to be charged for checking that it is correct in our file on the register.
	I thought that the way to distinguish between of those two types of information was to use the Bill. The reason that the amendment refers to Clause 12 is that that sets out information that can be accessed for the purposes of verifying key facts about you as an individual with your consent. The categories of information are set out in Clause 12(2)—there are eight sub-headings. I hope that the House will share my belief that I should be able to check at any time for no fee or charge that that information on the register is still accurate. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble colleague Lord Pearson of Rannoch seeks further clarification from the Minister, as does the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I admire the indefatigability of my noble friend—he is still a friend even though he does not take the Whip at the moment. He has an enviable knowledge of the intricacies of the inter-relationship between the EU and UK legislative and constitutional issues.
	Like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I support the intent behind this amendment, but like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I note that subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is not operable. If we wished to travel across the EU, we would have to comply with its requirements. Shame, one might say, but that is the reality. I anticipate that, as my noble friend said, the amendment seeks clarification and will not be pressed today.
	Subsection (2) ask a very pertinent question, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give a proper and satisfactory reply to my noble friend's questions on it. I am aware that these days it is almost impossible to speak at Bill do now pass. It seems to me that the House has tried to stop that. As my noble friend moved the amendment with such tenacity it seems to me an ideal opportunity to reflect on the marvellous support that I have received from my Back-Benchers—17 of whom have during our six days in Committee, three days on Report and during Second Reading and Third Reading, taken part in discussions on the Bill. I am extremely grateful to them as they have teased out more and more of the difficulties that the Government are heaping upon us through their drafting of the Bill.
	I also want to put on record my appreciation of the work of the Government's Bill team and of the courtesy that both Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, have shown in the way they have handled the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is unavoidably absent today. I am sure that all our thoughts are with her. The Ministers have had to respond to a barrage of criticism on the Bill's core issues—issues on which the House has decided against the Government. I refer to three issues. First, the Government should not compel us to have ID cards by stealth during a period which the Government promised in their election manifesto would be a voluntary period. Secondly, the Government are still unable to give the House a clear indication of costs that may be audited for the running of the scheme. Thirdly, I refer to the issue of the commissioner's powers and the independence of that office.
	We believe it is right that another place should now have the opportunity to look again at all those issues. My fervent hope is that the Government will allow another place sufficient time next Monday to debate them properly because the people of our country deserve nothing less than that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The national lottery has been a huge success. It was originally promoted by the previous administration and it has been developed and opened up to new and popular good causes by this Government. More than £18 billion has been raised for good causes during the past 11 years. About £16 billion of that money has already been put to good use. It has been distributed to exciting projects around the land by the Arts, Film and Sports Councils and the Heritage Lottery Fund.
	The Millennium Commission, Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund have invested in landmark projects such the Eden Project and Tate Modern, in hospices and healthy living centres, and in thousands of small local and national charitable initiatives.
	The money for those good causes comes willingly from those of us who—let's be honest about it—play the lottery to win. Around 70 per cent of us play regularly. More than 1,700 lottery millionaires have been created. Many of those people have been generous in their own right. Eighty seven per cent of jackpot winners have given some of their money to charity; one in seven has given £1 million or more to another family member.
	Camelot is the company that we have to thank for much of this success to date. It has brought excellent business skills to running the lottery well and achieving high levels of sales. The National Lottery Commission has worked hard to ensure fairness to players and, with Camelot, to maximise the money raised for good causes.
	I mention all these organisations because they deserve credit for what they have done, but also because I want to make clear from the outset how big and how complex is this very British, very successful endeavour. It was a brilliant and experimental idea when Parliament approved the legislation in 1993, and it has flourished subsequently. The reason for that is teamwork between business, public service, voluntary organisations and, above all, the public.
	Many of the measures in this Bill are about keeping all those positive forces in balance to give the lottery another decade of successful life. This Bill aims to modernise and simplify the way that lottery grants are distributed and to increase public involvement. It will also create one distributor, the Big Lottery Fund, at arm's length from government, in place of three separate grant-making bodies. Getting grants paid to those who need them as quickly as possible and reducing balances of money that have built up is also an aim. The Bill will improve the way that the licence to run the National Lottery is awarded and the way that the operator is registered.
	Clauses 1 to 5 deal with the regulation of the lottery through the National Lottery Commission. Notably, the chairman of the commission would no longer change annually. Executive board members could be appointed, putting the commission in the same position as the companies with which it will be dealing.
	Clause 6 and Schedule 1 deal with amendments to the licensing structure of the lottery. Reserve powers will permit the issue of more than one operating licence and the system is designed to deliver significantly greater competition to the licensing process, if required, but there is a clear presumption that there will be a single licence.
	Clause 7 deals with the share of lottery money for the Big Lottery Fund. A new good cause with half of lottery funding will be set up for the Big Lottery Fund. This good cause will be very wide. For that reason the Secretary of State will have power to prescribe expenditure at the highest level.
	Clause 8 provides for a reserve power to reallocate excessive unspent balances from one distributor to another for the same good cause. It would be used only as a last resort after consultation and affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament.
	Clause 9 changes the system of allocating investment income to lottery distributors from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. In future it would be in the same proportions that ticket sales income goes to each distributor.
	Clause 10 will enable lottery distributors to seek and take account of public consultation in making distribution decisions. The intention is to remove any doubt about the power to allow the public to have a say in such important matters.
	Clause 11 will ensure that lottery distributors have powers to publicise the good things that the lottery has achieved.
	Clause 12 will allow the Big Lottery Fund to make grants in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands.
	Clauses 13 and 14 and Schedule 2 will set up the Big Lottery Fund and allow it to distribute lottery funds. The Big Lottery Fund will also be able to distribute non-lottery funds and give advice about the distribution of lottery money and applications for grants. The fund will be required to comply with directions from the Secretary of State and from the devolved administrations.
	Clauses 15 to 18 deal with the dissolution of the old distributors that the Big Lottery Fund will replace—the Community Fund, the New Opportunities Fund and the Millennium Commission.
	Clause 19 defines "charitable expenditure", in relationship to the Big Lottery Fund good causes, as expenditure that is charitable. This is a purpose-based, rather than an institution-based, approach
	The key principles behind the Bill are to open up the lottery to make it fairer and more accessible for its players and their communities. It is about ensuring the best value for beneficiaries. By moving the lottery away from government and to the people, it will create confidence in those who play. The Bill will ensure that lottery money goes efficiently to good causes and that the lottery responds to peoples' priorities. The Bill will enable increased public involvement with lottery distributors and allow them to seek and take account of public consultation in making distribution decisions. The Bill will deliver administrative savings of some £6 million to £12 million a year through the replacement of the three distributors with the Big Lottery Fund. The Bill will put the National Lottery Commission in a better position to run an effective licence committee, with a view to maximising money for good causes.
	I am confident that the overall effect of these measures will be to cut bureaucracy, to speed up the flow of lottery money to good causes and increase the public's say in that, and to underpin the competition to run the lottery games on which the good causes depend. The Bill makes modest but useful changes to keep the Lottery in excellent condition, and I commend it to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I speak as one who is generally supportive of the Bill, although I have reservations about the whole concept of a lottery and the business of people who cannot afford tickets buying them. Having said that, I acknowledge that it is clearly popular and it works.
	Until now we have had five bodies covering the arts, heritage, sport, community and millennium funds, which were joined by the New Opportunities Fund. I want to speak about that amalgamation, which is the major part of the Bill, although there are other features. Clearly the major provision is to amalgamate the Community Fund, the New Opportunities Fund and the Millennium Commission. In reality, it creates a fund for other purposes, which is outside arts, heritage and sports. It covers everything else that could be charitable.
	I said that there were other features, and it is worth mentioning one at this stage. It is suggested that the Big Lottery Fund should be able to deal with non-lottery funds. I have some reservations about that. Some people will not accept lottery funds. By embracing funds that are not lottery funds, the Big Lottery Fund could put people off. They would prefer their project not to be supported by the lottery. I accept that the Big Lottery Fund will give us a great number of people who will be experts at grant-making, which, I suspect, is how the business of non-lottery funds has been brought in. I see that point but, if it is to stay in the Bill, perhaps there should be some form of packaging whereby it is clear to the grant applicant that there are resources from non-lottery funds.
	I should declare an interest, in the sense that I have had interests in giving away money as a trustee of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd. It is not a charity but the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust gives away money. I was involved 16 years ago in setting up the Calderdale Community Foundation, which exists to build up a sum of money to give away in precise geographical areas.
	Last week I was invited to lunch by the Big Lottery Fund. Your Lordships will be aware that we receive all sorts of invitations, and I tend to think that I have other things to worry about. However, people from the Big Lottery Fund rang me, so I thought perhaps I would go. I take the view that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but my speaking here today is an unintended consequence of that lunch. It may be that the people there had not bargained for what I might say.
	I have three concerns. First, the business of additionality has already been mentioned—how much of this Big Lottery Fund could be purloined by government for activities that ought to be supported from general taxation rather than the lottery. Secondly, I have the package of papers, including the document England and UK Programmes, which lists various headings, such as "Reaching Communities", "Voluntary and Community Sector Infrastructure", "Children's Play", "Environmental", "Well-being" and "International Grants Programme". I am very much in favour of the Big Lottery Fund doing something international. The list continues with "People's Millions" and half a dozen other headings.
	There is not a "miscellaneous" heading. I hope that in setting out programmes, which is not a bad idea, there are certain things that are worth concentrating on. We should never give up the opportunity of having something that does not fit the programme. There could be the brightest of ideas, but those running the fund could say, "I'm afraid it doesn't fit with any of our 12 programmes. Goodbye". Therefore, I hope that they can look at miscellaneous activities. Huge sums of money are involved and there must be some flexibility outside the listed programme.
	The third point for me is the most important. I am concerned about the spread of the expenditures and where decisions are made. It is interesting to look at what is proposed. There is to be a separate body within the Big Lottery Fund for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. It will give money to the Channel Islands and, with a population of not quite 80,000, the Isle of Man will have its own fund in order to be a grant-making body. I am in favour of the Isle of Man; I was taken there as a child at the age of four and I been there several years since.
	However, I would like everybody to benefit from that sort of detail. Where are the great regions of England? The Community Fund, which is one of the funds amalgamated in the Big Lottery Fund, had regional committees. It had one for Yorkshire. I spoke to a former member of that committee earlier today. I said, "My instinct is that what has now been proposed is wrong". He said, "You're bang on right with your instinct". He said that it was a wonderful organisation, able to have that regional flavour and to say what are the important things in Yorkshire. I am sure that that is so for the north-west, East Anglia and so on. Is it right that the 80,000 population of the Isle of Man should have their own resources—good luck to them, and I do not oppose it—or that 1.5 million in Northern Ireland should? Yet, in Yorkshire, we cannot.
	The Bill concentrates power. I am interested in devolving power. Everybody is now taking about this thing called localism. Where is the localism in this? The more people with a local perspective that are involved, the better the decision; and the greater number of people that are involved, the greater the number who will be able to keep their eye on this additionality business. The Bill is calling out for amendment.
	In the hour or two that I have had—as I say, I was provoked into speaking today in one sense—I have looked at the board. It is interesting that of the 17 members—and I am sure that they are all good people; I do not doubt that—three are from Northern Ireland, three are from Wales, and three are from Scotland. Nine of the 17 represent 16.5 per cent of the population and the other 83.5 per cent has got eight. The reason that has been done is because the Government have decided that as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are involved, they had better have people on the committee—not just one, but make it three. That is out of balance. With such a committee, it is no wonder that the 2.87 per cent of the population who reside in Northern Ireland should have 4.5 per cent of the spend, the 4.94 per cent who live in Wales should have 6.5 per cent, and the 8.61 per cent who live in Scotland should have 11.5 per cent.
	There may be reasons why these things are not exactly in balance population-wise, but it does not surprise you that you get that sort of balance when you look at the board. Therefore, it seems that this body is crying out for reform. The regions of England should have some input. In principle, it is right to put these two bodies together, which were perhaps fuzzy around the edges and very close together in many respects. It is right to do that on a national basis, but there must be a real regional input and a spread of power. We need some amendments to the Bill.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, sing the praises of this Bill, I hardly dare to say that I am rather worried about it. For me, it has set off some quite serious alarm bells. I am concerned that the Government will use the 14 per cent to be allocated to the Big Lottery Fund in a way that might blur the lines between what the Government should be doing and what the lottery should be doing. I am not the first person to point this out; nor will I be the last. But there are concerns about the Bill because greater powers have been taken by the Secretary of State on the direction of the Big Lottery Fund and the exercise of where the money is going to be directed.
	Not only that but the main priorities selected—education, health and environment—are those areas where it is very difficult to separate what the Government should be doing and what the Big Lottery Fund should be doing. With the term "additionality" goes independence. I have deep concern about the independence of the Big Lottery Fund.
	Before turning to my views on the Big Lottery Fund, I should like to say a few words about Camelot. I am very pleased that the Minister and my noble friend Lord Brooke have praised Camelot. I would like to add my voice. It has served us very well and has probably done even more than we might have expected. So it is good to know that the licence period will be extended. Clearly, a longer licence period will add to the stability of the system and perhaps provide for more development, as has already been said. As well as the Big Lottery Fund, there are sport, arts and heritage allocations, which stay more or less unchanged—50 per cent is divided between them, including a little for the film sector, which is fine.
	I should like to quote from the Big Lottery Fund booklet, which I was sent in preparation for this Bill. It states that the strategic framework is,
	"supporting community learning and creating opportunity . . . promoting community safety and cohesion . . . promoting well-being".
	Any of those could be absolutely in the remit of the Government. I do not see that any of those broad brushes are apart or separate or additional to what the Government should be doing.
	Those three areas are supported by four outcomes. The first is,
	"people having . . . chances in life, with better access to training and development to improve their life skills".
	Surely, that again is very much a Government remit. The second is,
	"stronger communities, with more active citizens working together to tackle their problems".
	I do not know how that works in practice. How do you make citizens active? I do not know. The third outcome is,
	"improved rural and urban environments, which communities are better able to access and enjoy".
	Yes, that is good. And the fourth is,
	"healthier and more active people and communities".
	This goes around and around in a feel-good way, but it does not tell us very much, which worries me hugely.
	I am also worried that the Secretary of State will have a lot of control on setting the priorities and policy direction. He will also make orders specifying recipients, amounts, periods and purposes of funding. If the Secretary of State can do all of those things, surely nothing is left out. Almost everything is covered. This Bill will give more powers to the Secretary of State to control the Big Lottery Fund, about which we should be deeply concerned.
	It is said that a commitment of 60 to 70 per cent of the funds will go to community and voluntary organisations. If that is the case, why is that not in the Bill? Why do the Government shy away from telling us how much will go to voluntary and community organisations? Clearly, they want to keep in hand control over what will go to statutory organisations. I am concerned about that.
	I should like to share my experience of accessing funds from the Millennium Commission for a project that I took through.
	I am referring to the memorial on Constitution Hill, which many noble Lords will have seen. We were initially asked to prepare a feasibility study and have a fundraiser before we had any means of getting all these things together, but we had to do so before we could even make an application. No seedcorn money was provided, and we had to spend a fair bit before the process could be started at all. Dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s to get a feasibility study done was not much use as time went on. Indeed, we were not able to get the 50 per cent we should have been able to, because at that stage it was difficult to know how much would be spent on the memorial. As your Lordships know, when you start on a project, you know it will cost more than you planned to begin with. Even one's own house or extension will cost more than you expected in the beginning.
	We did not receive the 50 per cent. We did not get back any of the money we spent trying to access the funds. Interestingly, though, another organisation was later given over £100,000 to prepare a feasibility study. That is one of the ways things have worked that has been extremely upsetting to organisations: some organisations seem able to access funds that have been denied to others. The most blatant example of all is the Dome. Hundreds of millions were given to the Dome by the Millennium Commission. The Government broke their own rules. No 50 per cent was required to be collected from any other source, and they have not paid back the money that was due to the Millennium Commission. It is frightening to think that the Government can break their own rules that they set for all little borrowers, take the money and use it from their own back pocket. This should be of concern to all of us.
	The Treasury already takes 12 per cent as tax from the Lottery. Is the 14 per cent also going to be a floating "good causes tax"? We should not overlook the fact that the Secretary of State has control over this money. People of this country are the ones buying the tickets, so it is our money. If the Government control what they say is for good causes, it is a tax in another form.
	I am concerned about the lack of independence. With additionality should go independence. Why is there no watchdog for the Lottery? There should be a watchdog, preparing a report annually and presenting it to Parliament. Then we will know exactly where the money has gone, and we can judge whether it has met the additionality condition. After all, we all live in this world. We know what is going on at this moment, and what the needs are. Let it be for Parliament to decide, on the basis of a watchdog's report, whether there is control by the Secretary of State or whether the money is actually additional and going to good causes as it should.

Viscount Eccles: My Lords, today we are following the trail of heritage and lottery Acts from 1980 through 1993, 1997 and 1998. As noble Lords have said, by 1997 the national lottery was well into its stride. While it had been opposed, and its provisions were amended in 1997, it was accepted and today nearly everybody supports its existence.
	More widely, in 1997 many people were thankful that consensus politics seemed again to be an option. New Labour saw that the market had come to stay and that social justice could be combined with economic efficiency. That dramatic change in position opened up the possibilities of pluralism and of decentralisation—not just decentralisation of elected political institutions but on a much wider scale. We could hope to be freed up to pursue different solutions to social problems and not just be expected to follow centrally driven prescriptions.
	New Labour accepted the benefits of private sector competition. Why should matters stop there? For in the pursuit of democratic advance the role of the charitable sector, with centuries of experience behind it as an institution builder and as a focus for charitable giving and of voluntary endeavour, cannot be exaggerated. Surely with new Labour's strategy and with the benefit of 28p in the pound from the lottery, we expected unqualified support for non-governmental charitable bodies—bodies which can go their own way within the law, and not all go in the same way either.
	Many charities can and do massively support health. Many charities can and do support education and the environment. They research, innovate and experiment, and when they get it wrong there are always others ready to pick up the pieces. All that was needed was to wind up the Millennium Fund, go back to four distributors and rearrange the percentages of funds distributed by the four—a rearrangement consistent with strategy and supportable by almost everybody. What do we get instead? A retreat from the strategic promise into step after step of central government control—non-departmental public bodies are part of central government, whichever way we argue the case for independence—and towards single stream decision-making. And what about the Bill? It is effectively a whitewash of decisions taken in 2002 and 2003, which were implemented in June 2004. By making BIG the distributor of half the money, those decisions erode the position of the charitable sector. They ensure that with guidance and directions BIG will implement a centralist government social agenda despite the fact that the issues we face cannot solely be tackled centrally.
	The reason given that it was sometimes difficult to fund decentralised charitable programmes because of prevailing legislation is unconvincing. Indeed, Clause 19 can be likened to a fig leaf. The fact is that BIG and the Secretary of State, in either order, want to do it themselves. They do not believe in charitable intermediaries. This is the heart of the matter. Pluralist policies would entail an unacceptable loss of central control. To cap it all, BIG is now to tell the other three distributors how to operate, as is proposed in Clause 36(d).
	It is sad that we have come to this, deluged by BIG with new programmes described in the "now you see it, now you don't" language of abstract noun after abstract noun. I gloomily predict that BIG will make more and probably embarrassingly worse mistakes than ever the private charitable sector would. Finally, as a prelude to later stages I will set out the dilemma that faces anyone trying to tease out the purposes and effects of directions. There is theory behind directions, which can be briefly stated. Studies of directions, mindful that they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, say that they are for administrative matters. All are agreed that directions must not be unreasonable and that they may not go beyond the provisions of the Act concerned as it will be interpreted by the courts. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that brief description is correct.
	However, when studying the proceedings in another place, that précis does not seem to be the end of the matter. There is clearly a concern that directions made will go beyond administrative matters into areas of policy and then could be in accordance with the Act only if the Act is so widely drawn as to defy proper description and debate in Parliament. I admit to being confused. Are directions a minor matter, with an element of last resort available to restrain unreasonable behaviour by bodies accountable to Parliament, or are they instruments for the development by Secretaries of State of policies beyond those that can be derived from the Act as enacted, or both?
	I contemplate the later stages of the Bill with scepticism and some sadness. We are being taken in the wrong direction, despite all the hopes of 1997.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction today and in particular, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his provision of those useful materials in relation to the interpretation of the Bill. Perhaps the fruits are borne out in this debate and we understand the nature of the Bill only too well as a result of those materials.
	This debate has reflected many of the uncertainties and concerns surrounding the Bill, but the common ground adopted by all those in the debate is that the National Lottery has been a great success story. The Minister's introduction both in terms of the money raised and the projects supported illustrates that. It has transformed much of Britain in a multitude of ways. I, too, was pleased that Camelot was mentioned during the debate, because I agree that it deserves great credit for the way in which it has run the lottery. It is good to see that returns have begun to grow again after being static or falling for some time.
	Even so, the National Lottery is perpetually in the spotlight. From the outset there was controversy about the objects and the balance of funding by the lottery distributors. There has recently been criticism of the way in which various of the lottery distributors have held balances. We have had concerns about diversion of money from other causes to fund the Olympics; and this past weekend we have had a great deal of publicity surrounding the EuroMillions jackpot, with prize money amounting to over £100 million.
	In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that there has been a great deal of debate about the Bill. Of course there are some elements that we support, particularly the additional flexibility for the length of the national operator's licence in Clause 4. The centrepiece of the Bill is the merger of the New Opportunities Fund with the Community Fund to create the Big Lottery Fund. However, as we have heard today, the essentials of the Big Lottery Fund have been in place for over a year, and much as I respect those who now run it, it does very much look like a Government fait accompli. The Big Lottery Fund was launched on 1 June 2004, more than 18 months before the legislation required to set it up can be passed. In fact, the merger was announced by the Secretary of State Tessa Jowell as long ago as 25 February 2003. When details of the merger decision first emerged, the NCVO said that there would be three tests of any such new lottery distributor: a guaranteed percentage of funding for voluntary organisations; independence from government; and grant making to be additional to existing public spending.
	On these Benches, we agree with those tests, and those are the yardsticks by which we shall measure the Bill. In the DCMS consultation on the creation of the Big Lottery Fund, there was clearly general support for retaining the principle of additionality; that is that lottery money should not pay for things that the government would otherwise have funded. However, the most disturbing aspect of the Bill is its failure to safeguard additionality, despite the New Opportunities Fund having a history of not pursuing it. Lottery funding should not be a substitute for general taxation, and governments should not be in a privileged position to use lottery funding for essential services or government-inspired programmes.
	Additionality was a founding principle of the national lottery. The idea was that the public would play the lottery in the knowledge that their money was going to support good causes in sport, the arts, heritage and charities. The Prime Minister said in 1997:
	"We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities".
	However, since that statement, the Government have persistently flouted the principle. The first breach of this founding principle came with the National Lottery Act 1998, which established the New Opportunities Fund to distribute 33.33 per cent of lottery funds among "innovative projects in health, education and the environment". The New Opportunities Fund was established to distribute moneys for these causes, but it then supported a range of government-directed programmes. Examples of breaches of the additionality principle by the New Opportunities Fund include: funding MRI scanners in NHS hospitals; funding a free piece of fruit a day for schoolchildren; funding healthier school meals; and some of those National Health Service projects that were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
	These are all important projects, but they are all in pursuance of mainstream policy objectives and the Government should have addressed them by means of tax revenue. Both the National Audit Office and the DCMS Select Committee have argued that the Government have not properly recognised in their publicity the difference between government and lottery spending. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
	As Sir John Major—who after all was essentially the creator of the national lottery when he was Prime Minister—said in his foreword to Ruth Lea's recent booklet, The Larceny of the Lottery Fund, which deals at length with the additionality issue, the intention was for lottery money to be,
	"used for additional spending on causes or activities that the taxpayer should not be expected to cover".
	Yet the Government, he said,
	"has diverted Lottery funding into areas that have historically been funded by the Exchequer".
	So, with the Community Fund and the New Opportunities Fund merged, Clause 7 provides for the distribution of 50 per cent of lottery funds. It states:
	"50 per cent shall be allocated for prescribed expenditure that is (i) charitable, or (ii) connected with health, or (iii) connected with education, or (iv) connected with the environment".
	According to published draft regulations which define "prescribed expenditure"—following regulations under the 1993 Act which were approved last year—this will include promoting community learning; promoting community safety and cohesion; and promoting physical and community well-being. I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that many of these areas are surely the proper responsibility of the Government.
	The Big Lottery Fund has a specific remit to fund these projects when taxpayers would rightly expect many of them to be funded directly by government. In effect, we are seeing taxation by the back door. This cannot be what was intended when the lottery was set up. The Big Lottery Fund and other lottery distributors have committed themselves to report on how they will uphold the additionality principle. We on these Benches welcome that commitment, but not to include that commitment in the Bill is a glaring failure.
	The National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the National Campaign for the Arts have called for a new clause requiring all lottery distributors to report on how they have upheld the distinction between lottery expenditure and core government expenditure. My honourable friends in the other place proposed an amendment to this effect which we will be pursuing in Committee and on Report.
	A further important amendment that we would wish to see would involve charging the Secretary of State with producing additionality guidance for all lottery distributors, making provisions relating in particular to how to distinguish between core government expenditure and lottery funding, and how to ensure that lottery funding is allocated free from political priorities. We also wish to see the Bill amended so that a periodic report is made to Parliament on how that additionality guidance has been adhered to. In other words we on these Benches want to see additionality enshrined in legislation in a practical way. Not only would that increase public confidence in the lottery but it would help ensure against further political interference, the subject of my next point.
	In addition, the Bill widens considerably government involvement in the distribution of lottery moneys on a number of fronts and undermines the independence of the Big Lottery Fund. Currently the Secretary of State, under the 1998 amendments to the 1993 Act, has the power to specify the initiatives to which the New Opportunities Fund will give effect—the programmes which it is required to run. The Secretary of State is required to seek the Treasury's approval before specifying these initiatives. The current legislation places the onus on the Secretary of State to consult on the initiatives which the New Opportunities Fund is tasked with running, prior to issuing directions to the NOF, rather than allowing the NOF to consult on the initiatives it will run. The NOF has the scope to consult on the way in which initiatives will be administered, not on what those initiatives will be.
	By contrast, the Community Fund has the freedom to set its own strategic direction, priorities and programmes, following consultation with stakeholders, including the Secretary of State. The Community Fund is required only to take account of the policy directions given to it while the NOF is required to comply; and, of course, the Community Fund, as my noble friend Lord Shutt illustrated extremely well, has regional committees which have helped it decide on the projects to be funded.
	Clause 14 amends the 1993 Act so that the Big Lottery Fund will be required to comply with directions issued by the Secretary of State. We have heard that the Big Lottery Fund is effectively a non-departmental public body. Clause 14 further specifies that the direction may provide to whom, for what purpose, and under what terms and conditions moneys may be granted by the Big Lottery Fund. I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said about the status of the Big Lottery Fund compared to the New Opportunities Fund in terms of being less under the control of government. That is not my interpretation of the Bill and the interpretation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was much closer to reality.
	What assurances do we have about how those ministerial directions will be made? All this is going in the wrong direction. Instead of widening their interference, the Government should be seeking to minimise it. The Big Lottery Fund should be guaranteed greater independence from government in its decision making.
	Clauses 8 and 9 need discussion in terms of their impact on balances, and I very much hope that we will explore those in greater detail in Committee.
	Finally, we also have concerns about changes to the definition of "charitable expenditure" in Clause 19, which amends Section 44 of the 1993 Act, from expenditure by charitable, benevolent or philanthropic organisations, to,
	"expenditure for a charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purpose".
	Of course we understand that there are many worthy social enterprises and community projects that do not technically qualify as charities, which would benefit under the new wording. But this would also allow activities undertaken by bodies from any governmental sector, such as local authorities or primary care trusts, to be classified as charitable expenditure.
	That is undesirable in two respects. First, the change can be seen also as potentially further eroding the additionality principle. The definition is so flexible as to allow for further moneys to be siphoned off for programmes in the areas of health and education, which are the proper domain of Exchequer funding. Secondly, the change represents a danger to voluntary sector funding. The Government may have given assurances that there will be no shortfall in support for the voluntary and community sector and the Big Lottery Fund board has indeed given a commitment that some 60 to 70 per cent of its funding will go to that sector, but that policy is vulnerable to reversal. We want to see those commitments to the voluntary and community sector safeguarded for the long term. What are the Government's intentions and how do they plan to do that?
	I said earlier that the three tests of any new lottery distributor should be independence from Government, that grant making should remain additional to existing public spending, and that there should be a guaranteed percentage of funding for voluntary organisations. Unfortunately, it is clear that the Bill fails to satisfy all three tests and, accordingly, we on these Benches are unable to give our support without substantial amendment.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this was my desperate attempt to be helpful to the House—by indicating what the finished product would be like if in fact no changes had been effected by this House, in circumstances where I am not in a position to anticipate any such changes. Of course, I anticipate that there will not be any changes, but we shall see. We shall see just how constructive the Opposition are and the skill and conviction with which they present their amendments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised first the issue of additionality as going to the heart of one of the issues in the Bill. That was the substantial element in the speeches of both noble Lords on the Front Benches of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. The issue was referred to in many other contributions in the debate, notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather.
	I emphasise to the House that we remain committed to the principle that lottery money should add to and not be a substitute for government money. There is a very big difference between agreeing priorities and outcomes that align with government priorities and using lottery funding to substitute for government expenditure. We are not doing the latter.
	Lottery money is not just for spending in areas where no government spending would ever take place. That would be an impossible situation. We expect the lottery to spend on top of things which government would normally fund. We could not possibly argue that, because the Government spend money on the arts, heritage and sport—as we obviously do—the lottery should have no contribution to these areas due to some concept that it infringes a principle of additionality.
	The same is certainly true of health, education and environment. Of course these are key spending areas for government. Are noble Lords really contending that in fact these areas should not be contributed to from lottery funds? Or is it suggested that in legislation it is straightforward to define the principle of additionality? We certainly adhere to that principle. Our contention is that it is extremely difficult to express this concept in legislative terms, but we will see what emerges from the Opposition, who this evening at least were extremely buoyant about their ability to present an effective definition for these issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also criticised the Government's announcing of lottery awards, and I think there was a Government slip at that time. We have changed the reference to schools sport on the department's website because we accept that the original text was not clear between the lottery contribution and government. The National Audit Office was critical of the Government on this, and we accept the point in that limited area. We have taken steps to amend that.
	That does not mean that we do not, in general terms, adhere strictly to the concept of additionality. It makes no sense to argue that the taxpayer should pay for everything to do with our health, learning and environment, or that there is nothing that can be contributed from the lottery. When it comes to additionality, there has been a tendency in this debate to understress the extent to which the Government are committed to and observe the principle. There is also a belief that in legislative terms this is an easy concept to define. We shall see.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also suggested a worry about the failure to spend rapidly the £3 million prize money which the Manchester Victoria baths project won as a result of the first series of the BBC2 Restoration programme. I accept his concern, which he articulated in precise terms. It is just a genuine problem that the Restoration project focused only on the restoration of the Turkish baths, which excited the public's imagination so that it won the first position. Unfortunately, the Turkish baths are only part of an important heritage site, and we could not start work on that project ahead of a solution for the site as a whole. There is no intention in any form of reneging on the commitment made, or the interesting idea of the prize and the development there. There is a genuine, practical difficulty.
	The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised a question about the Big Lottery Fund and the flexibility about what fitted into the framework. We expect the framework created to be broad enough to allow many different types of project to be funded. We do not pretend that everything is going to fit within the framework, and that is why the fund will also be delivering some demand-led, lightly prescribed programmes, including Awards for All and the new Reaching Communities programme, which have the areas of flexibility and response to community pressure which he was strongly advocating in his speech.
	The noble Lord also mentioned the issue of representation. We are in an interim stage at the present time. The current arrangement is a temporary measure, and we intend to provide for the final Big Lottery Fund board to have 12 members: one member each to represent England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the other members general UK members. I think that addresses what he regarded as somewhat over-representation of the communities of the United Kingdom and the under-representation of the regions of England.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham thought that Clauses 8 and 9 might mean less money for heritage. There is no power within these clauses to move money from one good cause to another. Money could be transferred from the current heritage lottery, but I assure the right reverend Prelate that such moneys transferred could still be spent only on heritage. I give him the assurance that there is not a loss to the heritage funding in those terms. I recognise his obvious special interest, in terms of his representation of the Church in relation to the substantial amount of heritage for which it is responsible.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who has left her place to preside over our proceedings. She anticipated—she was partly responding to what had already been indicated—the issue of how one defines additionality in legislation. She is so right on that point. She will recognise that our recent statements about the Bill mean that the voluntary sector will not lose out under the arrangements. We welcome her acknowledgement that government intervention with the Big Lottery Fund is appropriate, and intend to operate a light touch. She speaks with many years of direct experience about the lottery funds, so her representations were all the more valuable for that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, emphasised their concerns about the degree of government control represented by the measure. I emphasise that we are committed to a light touch on the Big Lottery Fund. I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, suggest that the directions represent increased power of interference from the Secretary of State. We have already shown our intent by issuing new interim policy directions for the New Opportunities Fund and the Community Fund. We certainly recognise that it would be a mistake for the concept to develop that the Government were operating with a heavy hand on the fund. That is not so. We will allow the fund full scope to make decisions on programmes, choose delivery mechanisms, identify partners and select projects.
	I hope that during Committee I shall be able to reassure the House even further on those issues. There is no doubt that that is an important area of public concern and controversy. One advantage of Committee is that we will have the chance further to explore both that and additionality, which are the two issues that have been identified in the debate.
	I want to reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that Clause 14 does not allow the Big Lottery Fund to tell other distributors what to do. It merely provides the power to allow it to provide wider advice, such as a lottery funding website to help people to apply for lottery funds. It is question not of increased direction, but of extending the opportunity for advice.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether hospices would still be eligible for funding and whether there would still be funding for cross-cutting health projects. I assure her on both counts. All funding decisions will be for the Big Lottery Fund, but she will recognise that the success of those projects in recent years to which she alluded will commend them in such decisions. I think that she was the only speaker who was worried about the extent to which the National Lottery promotes gambling. The average stake in the National Lottery is £3, so I do not think that when the Gambling Commission considers how we control gambling generally and further legislation, the National Lottery is unlikely to cause conspicuous concern. We have been operating a hybrid arrangement without a full legislative framework for some time. This is what the Bill sets out to make in legislation. I hear his criticism, but he will recognise that there was a pressing need to act then, and I hope that he will recognise that in legislative terms we have attended to the issue as early as we reasonably could.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is strongly supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was in a very constructive mood. In my more sensitive moments, I look on constructive statements from the other side as dire threats and warnings of tribulation to come, but we always enjoy ourselves in Committee and pursue these things in a constructive manner, so I wish them well in their efforts to persuade me that they can write additionality into the Bill, although I am not too sure that I will be easily convinced on that front.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, made an informed speech on her background and interest in the National Lottery. I very much welcome her comments on the need to sort out licensing arrangements. We seek to go some way with this under the Bill. I also appreciated the positive things that she had to say about the conduct of the lottery. I emphasise that this legislation is there to enhance the operation of a project in which we can all take pride, both under the previous administration and with careful nurturing under this one, and with support at all times from the Liberal Democrat Benches, although sometimes that support can be a little guarded.
	Here is a body from which a huge number of people get a great deal of innocent pleasure, while contributing to projects which, if noble Lords opposite find it difficult to accept additionality, are often ones which we know no Government would have been able to finance to the extent that they have of late. Many of those projects involve local communities enormously, and are the best illustration of our community working to improve the lot of everyone in our society with resources which, if not obtained without cost, are relatively painlessly delivered.
	On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.